Janini v. London Townhouses Condo. Ass'n

1

DAOUD MOUSA JANINI and FERYA JANINI, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LONDON TOWNHOUSES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee, and JAMES PYDA, Defendant.

No. SC 164158

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 11, 2024

Argued on application for leave to appeal November 8, 2023.

Syllabus

Daoud M. Janini and Feryal Janini filed a complaint against London Townhouses Condominium Association in the Wayne Circuit Court alleging that defendant had breached its duty to maintain the sidewalk in the condominium complex by failing to timely remove snow and ice. Plaintiffs owned and resided in a condominium unit in a condominium complex. Defendant was an association of the co-owners of the condominiums in the complex, and defendant was responsible for clearing snow and ice from the common areas of the complex. Daoud Janini fell on a snow- and ice-covered sidewalk in a common area of the complex and hit the back of his head, resulting in a brain injury. After plaintiffs filed their action, defendant moved for summary disposition. The trial court, Dana M. Hathaway J., granted defendant's motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims except for their premises-liability claim. Defendant sought leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals Cavanagh, P.J., and Gadola, J. (Shapiro, J., concurring) reversed the trial court's order denying summary disposition as to the premises-liability claim in an unpublished per curiam opinion. The Court of Appeals held that because plaintiffs were co-owners of the land on which Daoud fell, he was precluded from bringing a premises-liability claim. Plaintiffs sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, and in lieu of granting leave, the Supreme Court ordered oral argument on the application. 509 Mich. 1072 (2022).

In an opinion by Justice Bernstein, joined by Chief Justice Clement and Justices Cavanagh, Welch, and Bolden, the Supreme Court held:

A co-owner of a condominium unit in a condominium project is an invitee when that person enters the common elements of the condominium project, and the condominium association owes the co-owner a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the co-owner from dangerous conditions on the land. Therefore, a co-owner may maintain a premises-liability action against the condominium association, and Francescutti v Fox Chase Condo Ass'n, 312 Mich.App. 640 (2015), was overruled.

1. In Michigan, condominium ownership is governed by the Condominium Act, MCL 559.101 et seq., and under the act, the administration of a condominium project is governed by the

condominium bylaws. The "common elements" of a condominium project are the portions of the project other than the condominium units. Under the act, the condominium association is a separate legal entity that is capable of being sued by a co-owner or other person. Although the act is silent regarding whether a condominium association has a common-law duty to protect a co-owner from dangerous conditions on the land under its control, i.e., the common areas, nothing in the act clearly prohibits application of the common law to such circumstances. Moreover, there is no indication that, by creating a statutory cause of action that co-owners and others may bring against a condominium association to compel it to enforce the provisions of the governing documents, the Legislature meant to abrogate the common law and immunize condominium associations from tort liability. However, whether a condominium co-owner may maintain a premises-liability action against a condominium association depends on whether a special relationship exists between the co-owner and the association as the owner occupier, or possessor of the land, such that the law imposes a duty of care on the association.

2. Historically, Michigan has recognized that the duty a possessor of land owes to a person who enters the land depends on whether the visitor is classified as an invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser. An invitee is entitled to the highest level of protection under premises-liability law and enters the land of another upon an invitation that carries an implied assurance that reasonable care has been taken to make the premises safe for their reception. Thus, landowners owe a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition of the land. Special relationships are predicated on an imbalance of control; i.e., the party in possession is in a position of control and is normally best able to prevent harm to others. Although a condominium project's common elements are typically owned collectively by the condominium co-owners, the co-owners do not independently exercise exclusive ownership over the common elements, but rather cede control to the condominium association, whose responsibility it becomes to maintain the common elements. Thus, while condominium co-owners have an undivided interest in the common elements under the act, that interest does not mean that they have control over the common elements.

3. The Michigan Supreme Court has recognized that a "special relationship" exists between a landlord and tenant, and in practice, the relationship between a condominium association and a condominium co-owner is similar to this relationship. For instance, apartment structures have common elements, which the lessor has a duty to maintain. Tenants lack control over these areas, while the landlord has control over them and thus a duty to keep the areas reasonably safe. The Court of Appeals has recognized that tenants are invitees of the landlord while in the common areas. The landlord-tenant relationship mirrors the relationship between a condominium association and a condominium co-owner. In this case, defendant assumed a duty to maintain the common elements under its bylaws, which necessarily required defendant to assume control over the common elements. Plaintiff, by agreeing to the bylaws, ceded control over the common elements to defendant.

4. The next question to consider was whether the special relationship between plaintiff and defendant was that of invitee and land possessor. Invitee status is commonly afforded to persons entering the property of another for a business purpose. In this case, plaintiff was in a business relationship with defendant and paid money to defendant to maintain the common elements. Moreover, in becoming a co-owner, plaintiff agreed to cede individual authority over the common elements to the association, and defendant's bylaws ensured that the premises would be made safe for plaintiff's use. Under this framework, plaintiff was an invitee and could maintain a premises-liability action against defendant. Although previous premises-liability caselaw may refer to the "land of another," this does not necessarily mean the land of another owner. Rather, the "land of another" means that another person or entity has possession and control over the land on which a person is injured. Land ownership is not dispositive to the inquiry in premises-liability cases.

Reversed and remanded.

Justice Zahra, joined by Justice Viviano, dissenting, would not have overruled Francescutti, and, instead, would have held that plaintiff was not a common-law invitee, licensee, or trespasser while in the general common elements of the condominium project. The legal status of a condominium co-owner is not defined by the common law of premises liability, but by the Condominium Act. The legal relationship between a condominium co-owner and their condominium association is governed entirely by the Condominium Act and the association's bylaws; the common law has no application. The Condominium Act limits a condominium co-owner's right to legal action against the condominium association to one for injunctive relief or breach of contract; the act does not provide that damages may be sought from the association. A condominium is an estate in real property and a form of property ownership that did not exist at common law. Therefore, the relationship between a condominium co-owner and a condominium association has always been the product of statutory law. There is little justification for the majority's declaration that condominium co-owners have the rights of tenants under the common law or for classifying them as invitees as to the general common elements of the condominium project. Unlike a tenant, a co-owner has a pecuniary interest in the property, and unlike a landlord, an association is a nonprofit entity with no pecuniary interest in the property.

Chief Justice: Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices: Brian K. Zahra, David F. Viviano, Richard H. Bernstein, Megan K. Cavanagh, Elizabeth M. Welch, Kyra H. Bolden

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH

OPINION

BERNSTEIN, J.

In this case, we consider whether a condominium co-owner can maintain a premises-liability action against a condominium association when the co-owner was injured while using the condominium's common elements. We conclude that the Court of Appeals erroneously determined that a condominium co-owner is neither a licensee nor an invitee and thus is precluded from bringing a premises-liability claim against a condominium association simply because the condominium co-owner holds an interest in those common elements. The proper inquiry when considering the duty owed in a premises-liability action is who has possession and control over the land where a person was injured, not merely who owns the land. We hold that, when the master deed and bylaws governing a condominium complex provide that the condominium association is responsible for maintaining the common areas and the condominium's co-owners lack possession and control over those common areas, a condominium co-owner using the condominium...